From robin at berjon.com  Wed Dec  9 00:53:26 2009
From: robin at berjon.com (Robin Berjon)
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 09:53:26 +0100
Subject: [Dahut-pm] Fwd: Decentralized versioning system at W3C
References: <1260347865.3355.979.camel@localhost>
Message-ID: <BBED619E-9025-45B7-B9EF-055189B55436@berjon.com>

DAHUT!

I know there's solid Git experience here. Any suggestions? It would be rather helpful :)

You can post directly to public-qa-dev at w3.org if you want (Cc me please), or I can forward ideas.

Thanks for any input!

Begin forwarded message:
> Resent-From: w3c-tools at w3.org
> From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom at w3.org>
> Date: December 9, 2009 09:37:45 GMT+01:00
> To: w3c-tools <w3c-tools at w3.org>, chairs at w3.org
> Subject: Decentralized versioning system at W3C
> archived-at: <http://www.w3.org/mid/1260347865.3355.979.camel at localhost>
> 
> Hi,
> 
> We?ve heard from several groups and individuals that they would like W3C
> to host a public decentralized versioning repository for W3C-related
> work items, such as editors drafts, test suites, tools and software.
> 
> The goal of such a repository would be to host the reference versions of
> these items, while allowing as many people as possible to modify,
> branch, patch the content of the repository, without the hurdles that
> CVS creates for this kind of cooperation.
> 
> The systems team had started to provide an experimental Git service
> early this year [1]; as we are looking into expanding that experiment,
> we are hitting the question that many others have encountered in that
> process: which decentralized versioning system to choose?
> 
> The main two contenders seems to be Git and Mercurial; Git seems to a
> growing number of tools, and more advanced features; Mercurial seems to
> be easier to use, and possibly easier to set up on a larger number of
> platforms.
> 
> We?re interested to hear feedback on this question, in particular in the
> form of sharing experience of using them (inside or outside of the W3C
> community), and pros and cons of both systems.
> 
> Feel free to forward this request for feedback to your groups and other
> interested parties; feedback should be sent preferably to
> public-qa-dev at w3.org (a public mailing list), but can also be sent to
> w3c-tools at w3.org (resp. w3t-sys at w3.org)  for those that would rather
> keep their feedback Member-only (resp. Team-only). 
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> for the Systeam, 
> Dom
> 
> 1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-tools/2009JanMar/0002.html
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/




From jwalt at cpan.org  Wed Dec  9 06:19:29 2009
From: jwalt at cpan.org (=?windows-1252?q?J=F6rg_Walter?=)
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 15:19:29 +0100
Subject: [Dahut-pm] Fwd: Decentralized versioning system at W3C
In-Reply-To: <BBED619E-9025-45B7-B9EF-055189B55436@berjon.com>
References: <1260347865.3355.979.camel@localhost>
	<BBED619E-9025-45B7-B9EF-055189B55436@berjon.com>
Message-ID: <200912091519.29291.jwalt@cpan.org>

On Wednesday 09 December 2009, Robin Berjon wrote:
> DAHUT!
> 
> I know there's solid Git experience here. Any suggestions? It would be
>  rather helpful :)
> 
> You can post directly to public-qa-dev at w3.org if you want (Cc me
>  please), or I can forward ideas.

I would have suggested those two as well. From a user's point of view, I 
can't see much difference. Work flow is virtually the same, and I mildly 
dislike both (mostly due to being cumbersome in working with branches).

If I had to choose, I'd take git simply due to the fact I believe its 
development community is more active, with the Linux kernel project and 
x.org/freedesktop.org as well-known users.

-- 
CU
	J?rg

From perigrin at gmail.com  Wed Dec  9 09:01:16 2009
From: perigrin at gmail.com (Chris Prather)
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 12:01:16 -0500
Subject: [Dahut-pm] Fwd: Decentralized versioning system at W3C
In-Reply-To: <200912091519.29291.jwalt@cpan.org>
References: <1260347865.3355.979.camel@localhost>
	<BBED619E-9025-45B7-B9EF-055189B55436@berjon.com>
	<200912091519.29291.jwalt@cpan.org>
Message-ID: <12b83b2d0912090901y4fb0712dl3aa5055c27d15948@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 9:19 AM, J?rg Walter <jwalt at cpan.org> wrote:

> If I had to choose, I'd take git simply due to the fact I believe its
> development community is more active, with the Linux kernel project and
> x.org/freedesktop.org as well-known users.

And Perl.

-Chris

From perigrin at gmail.com  Wed Dec  9 09:07:51 2009
From: perigrin at gmail.com (Chris Prather)
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 12:07:51 -0500
Subject: [Dahut-pm] Fwd: Decentralized versioning system at W3C
In-Reply-To: <BBED619E-9025-45B7-B9EF-055189B55436@berjon.com>
References: <1260347865.3355.979.camel@localhost>
	<BBED619E-9025-45B7-B9EF-055189B55436@berjon.com>
Message-ID: <12b83b2d0912090907l74fc20e7wec9566f609a01266@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 3:53 AM, Robin Berjon <robin at berjon.com> wrote:
> DAHUT!

DAAAAHHUUUUTTTT!

> I know there's solid Git experience here. Any suggestions? It would be rather helpful :)
>
> You can post directly to public-qa-dev at w3.org if you want (Cc me please), or I can forward ideas.
>
> Thanks for any input!
>
> Begin forwarded message:

>>
>> The main two contenders seems to be Git and Mercurial; Git seems to a
>> growing number of tools, and more advanced features; Mercurial seems to
>> be easier to use, and possibly easier to set up on a larger number of
>> platforms.

 I'm  biased  because I don't really know Hg, but Git has been making
*huge* strides in becoming much more user friendly.

In addition adding commands to Git is trivial (just name a script
`git-foo` in your path, and `git foo` becomes available), it's
*incredibly* fast, and unlike `Moe` I like it's branching better than
any other system I've worked with, specifically I actually *branch*
now where as with sv[kn] I've found nothing but pain there.

-Chris

From mike at nachbaur.com  Wed Dec  9 09:20:39 2009
From: mike at nachbaur.com (Michael Nachbaur)
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 09:20:39 -0800
Subject: [Dahut-pm] Fwd: Decentralized versioning system at W3C
In-Reply-To: <12b83b2d0912090907l74fc20e7wec9566f609a01266@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1260347865.3355.979.camel@localhost>
	<BBED619E-9025-45B7-B9EF-055189B55436@berjon.com>
	<12b83b2d0912090907l74fc20e7wec9566f609a01266@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DD3D661D-2755-41AB-96AD-F4DBB213960F@nachbaur.com>

On 9-Dec-09, at 9:07 AM, Chris Prather wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 3:53 AM, Robin Berjon <robin at berjon.com> wrote:
>> DAHUT!
>
> DAAAAHHUUUUTTTT!

DAAAHUUUUTT!!

>>> The main two contenders seems to be Git and Mercurial; Git seems  
>>> to a
>>> growing number of tools, and more advanced features; Mercurial  
>>> seems to
>>> be easier to use, and possibly easier to set up on a larger number  
>>> of
>>> platforms.
>
> I'm  biased  because I don't really know Hg, but Git has been making
> *huge* strides in becoming much more user friendly.
>
> In addition adding commands to Git is trivial (just name a script
> `git-foo` in your path, and `git foo` becomes available), it's
> *incredibly* fast, and unlike `Moe` I like it's branching better than
> any other system I've worked with, specifically I actually *branch*
> now where as with sv[kn] I've found nothing but pain there.

I second this.  There's been quite a lot of adoption of Git out there,  
particularly in the OSS community, but I find its branching scheme  
"Just Works".  I'm working on a decentralized project with around 50  
ass-hat developers, and merging and branching their changes is far  
easier than any VCS I've ever used.

Git++